Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1466783428967.jpg (173KB, 862x1200px) Image search:
[Google]
173KB, 862x1200px
Why is atila the hun always depicted as a mongol despite there being no contemporary description of him? He has a gothic name, his seat of power is around modern day Hungary, he ruled of a confederations of alans, goths, and huns, every one claiming descendant from him was described as white
Even actual historians are doing retarded mental gymnastics on how an illiterate mongol came from half way around the world to learn gothic and rule over european tribals
>>
People think the Huns were monoethnic and mongol
>>
>not being depicted as a qt
>>
>>1343985
pretty much all steppe fuckers are basically considered mongol
that and the first accounts of them came from China
>>
>>1343985
>Why is atila the hun always depicted as a mongol
nigga what
>>
Attila was Scythian. The Huns were a Scythian people.
>>
>Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin
This is the only description of Attila, given by Jordanes, who lived two hundred years later.
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2